Add task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only convey that this is a non-read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds real behavioral facts annotations cannot express: task IDs are sequential (T1, T2, ...) and the task starts as pending unless another status is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the core action, the ID sequencing behavior, and the default status plus sibling routing. The main purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter append tool whose schema documents every parameter, the description covers all distinctive behaviors an agent needs. The one gap: with no output schema present, it never states what the call returns (e.g., the newly assigned T-id), which the agent must infer from the sequential-ID note.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (text, status, changeId, workspace) already carry defaults, formats, and enum values. The description's "starts as pending unless another status is given" largely restates what the schema's "Defaults to pending" already says, adding little beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Append one task to a change" names a specific verb, resource, and target scope, going well beyond the tautological title "Add task." It also differentiates from the most confusable sibling by noting task_update moves tasks between statuses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The final sentence gives an explicit when-not: "Use task_update to move a task between statuses," routing agents away from this tool for status transitions. Situating the operation "to a change" also orients it within the change lifecycle alongside siblings like change_create and change_activate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.